J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
DOI 10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4
Understanding The Impact of an Apprenticeship-Based Scientific
Research Program on High School Students’ Understanding
of Scientific Inquiry
Mehmet Aydeniz • Kristen Baksa • Jane Skinner
Published online: 4 November 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand the
impact of an apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry. Data
related to seventeen students’ understanding of science and
scientific inquiry were collected through open-ended
questionnaires. Findings suggest that although engagement
in authentic scientific research helped the participants to
develop competency in experimentation methods it had
limited impact on participants’ learning of the implicit
aspects of scientific inquiry and NOS. Discussion focuses
on the importance of making the implicit assumptions of
science explicit to the students in such authentic scientific
inquiry settings through structured curriculum.
Keywords Authentic scientific inquiry High school Nature of science
Introduction
Acquisition of scientific inquiry skills and an adequate
understanding of the nature of science [NOS] are the two
prominent goals of science education reform. The National
Science Education Standards (National Research Council
[NRC] 1996) define inquiry as ‘‘the diverse ways in which
M. Aydeniz (&)
Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education,
College of Education, Health and Human Sciences,
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville,
TN, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Baksa J. Skinner
Farragut High School, Knox County Schools,
Knoxville, TN, USA
scientists study the natural world and propose explanations
based on the evidence derived from their work’’ (p. 23).
The five hallmarks of inquiry-based learning experiences
include: Learners engage in development of scientificallyoriented questions; learners give priority to evidence,
which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations
that address scientifically-oriented questions; learners formulate explanations from evidence; learners evaluate their
explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding; and learners
communicate and justify their proposed explanations. The
most agreed upon definition of NOS emphasizes the epistemological values, assumptions of science as well as its
connections with social, individual and cultural values and
biases (Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Loving 1997;
McComas 1996; Ryan and Aikenhead 1992; Schwartz
et al. 2002). The aspects of NOS emphasized in science
education literature include that scientific knowledge is
tentative, it is subject to change based on new observations,
evidence and reinterpretations of existing observations and
evidence, it is based on empirical evidence: is derived from
observations of the natural world, it is the product of
human’s imaginations and critical thinking, it is subjective
in that it is influenced by current theories and that personal
values and experiences influence how scientists perform
science. Other aspects of NOS emphasized in science
education literature are, scientific knowledge is influenced
by the society and culture in which it is practiced, theories
and laws are two different kinds of knowledge and that
there is a difference between observation and inference
(Schwartz et al. 2004). Although scientific inquiry and
NOS are often discussed separately, it is hard to separate
one from the other (Schwartz et al. 2004). It is believed that
students or teachers will not be able to effectively participate in scientific inquiry if they do not understand the
123
404
explicit and implicit assumptions and values of science.
Without understanding the assumptions and values of science students are likely to construct an image of scientific
inquiry that is limited to experimentation. Similarly, the
naı̈ve views of NOS held both by teachers and students are
attributed in part to their lack of experiences in conducting
scientific inquiry (Brown and Melear 2006; Eick 2000; Lederman 2007; Schwartz and Crawford 2003; Gallagher
1991).
In spite of the emphasis placed on inquiry-based learning
and an adequate understanding of NOS in science education
reform documents such as Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for Advancement of Science
[AAAS] 1993) and NSES (NRC 1996) and contemporary
science education literature (Abrams et al. 2007; Lederman
2007), research reports (NRC 2000; National Academies of
Sciences [NAS] 2005) maintain that instruction in most
American k-12 classrooms fails to promote students’
acquisition of such understandings, knowledge and skills.
For instance, a recent report by the NAS (2005) revealed
that high school science laboratories fail to engage students
in inquiry-based learning. The report stated that although
science laboratories have been a part of school science
curricula for a long time, ‘‘a clear articulation of their role
in student learning remains elusive’’ (NAS 2005, p. 13).
Science education literature also reports similar findings.
For instance, many research findings suggest that activity
without understanding is a common feature of science
laboratories in many public school classrooms (Hofstein
and Lunetta 2004; Wallace and Kang 2004; Roth and
Garnier 2007; Windschitl et al. 2008). As currently enacted, many laboratories fail to provide a context for students
to understand the explicit and implicit assumptions of
science such as the epistemologies of science and the
nature of scientific knowledge (Chinn and Hmelo 2002;
Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Germann et al. 1996). In other
words, laboratories focus only on demonstrations and
experimentation aspects of the scientific inquiry, and fail to
emphasize the theory development, socially negotiated
nature of scientific knowledge and an understanding about
the influence of social biases on the products of science
(Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Longino 1990; Schwartz and
Lederman 2006; Windschitl et al. 2008). This exclusive
emphasis on the experimentation fails to provide a context
for high school students to understand how the scientific
knowledge gets generated and validated.
This challenge is hard to overcome in traditional classroom settings due to teachers’ naı̈ve views of scientific
inquiry (Eick 2000), their limited experiences with and
knowledge of scientific inquiry (Brown and Melear 2006),
the time, curriculum priorities and the pressures of testdriven accountability policies (Aydeniz 2007; Abrams
et al. 2007; Blanchard et al. 2009). Therefore, science
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
educators worldwide are working to create contexts conducive to the promotion of such learning goals beyond the
classroom. For instance, teaching high school students
about the processes of scientific inquiry by placing them in
authentic contexts is increasingly becoming popular among
science educators (Hsu and Roth 2009; Richmond and
Kurth 1999; Roth and Roychoudhury 1993; Sadler and
Burgin 2009; Schwartz et al. 2004; Stake and Mares 2001,
2005; Templin et al. 1999). Although these programs are
becoming popular and define the nature of most university
and k-12 partnerships, we know little about how engagement in such learning experiences contributes to high
school students’ understandings of the epistemologies
of science, understandings and knowledge of scientific
inquiry, and their aspirations to become scientists.
The purpose of the study was to explore how engagement in inquiry-based learning experiences in an authentic
scientific research setting contributes to a group of high
school students’ understanding of the nature of science and
scientific inquiry.
Review of Literature
Providing inquiry-based learning experiences for high
school students in authentic scientific research settings
have become increasingly popular in recent years (Bleicher
1996; Bell et al. 2003; Charney et al. 2007; Barab and Hay
2001; Lee and Songer 2003; Ritchie and Rigano 1996;
Stake and Mares 2005). For a recent and comprehensive
review of such programs see Sadler et al. 2010. Sadler
et al.’s (2010) review of such programs reveal that these
programs have a positive influence on students’ understanding of NOS, interest in pursuing science related
careers, self confidence in performing science and intellectual development. However, given the limited number
of participants in the studies that Sadler et al. (2010)
reviewed and the diversity of participants (i.e., high school,
college students and teachers), and the diversity in the
length of programs that serve as a context for past studies,
more research needs to be done to develop a better
understanding of the limitations and the potential of
authentic scientific research experiences offered to high
school students. Out of the 20 studies that were designed
for high school students and reviewed by Sadler et al., only
in two studies high school students engaged in authentic
scientific inquiry for an academic semester or longer. The
total number of the participants in these two studies is nine.
In addition, not all of these studies explored the impact of
these experiences on students’ understanding of the nature
of science and scientific inquiry. For instance, only two
studies (Bell et al. 2003; Charney et al. 2007) focused on
students’ understanding of the nature of science. The total
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
number of participants in these studies combined was 40.
This limited number of participants call for the need to
further investigate the influence of authentic scientific
experiences on high school students’ understanding of the
nature of science and scientific inquiry.
Brown et al. (1989) define authentic activities as,
‘‘ordinary practices of the culture’’ through which the
purposes and meaning of their actions are constructed,
negotiated and refined by present and past members (p. 34).
The authentic setting in the context of this study refers to
the university science laboratories or national laboratory
where expert scientists conduct their investigations, collect
and analyze their data, and form scientific theories (Latour
and Woolgar 1986; Roth 1995). Authentic activities associated with authentic scientific inquiry include ‘‘designing
complex procedures, controlling for nonobvious confounds, planning multiple measures of multiple variables,
using techniques to avoid perceptual and other biases,
reasoning extensively about possible experimental error,
and coordinating results from multiple studies that may be
in conflict with each other’’(Chinn and Hmelo 2002, p. 2)
and developing defendable, evidence-based explanations.
The inquiry-based learning experiences provided to high
school students in authentic settings are designed based on
an apprenticeship model (Sadler et al. 2010). Within this
apprenticeship model, high school students are placed in a
science laboratory under the supervision of a graduate
student or a professor to engage in an ongoing research
project or guided to start a new scientific research project
(Sadler et al. 2010). One of the assumptions of such programs is that novices (i.e., high school students) will
enhance their understandings, knowledge and skills in
relation to scientific inquiry through participation in rituals
of the scientific culture in an organized fashion under the
supervision of a master scientist (Lave and Wenger 1991;
Rogoff 1990). Roth (1995) points out, ‘‘Apprenticeship
offers direct exposure to the realities of the actual workplace and, in this, facilitates the emergence of skills,
problem solving techniques, knowledge and language of
practitioners in the context of everyday out of school
practice’’ (as cited in Hsu et al. 2009, p. 482). One of the
justifications for this argument is based on the situated
accounts of learning which asserts that knowledge is highly
contextualized and is best learned in settings in which it
occurs (Brown et al. 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991). It is
also believed that when novices learn science on the
shoulders of expert scientists they are more likely to
acquire adequate knowledge and skills about the process of
scientific inquiry and develop adequate understanding of
NOS. Finally, it is believed that when high school students
conduct research in science laboratories under the guidance
of a scientist, they will develop aspirations to become
scientists. However, given the limited number of
405
participants studied so far, we cannot make grand conclusions about the influence of such programs on students’
learning and aspirations to become scientists Sadler and
Burgin (2009) state, ‘‘while reports cast a positive light on
these programs, the empirical support for these claims is
somewhat tenuous’’ (p. 3). Therefore, more empirical
inquiries are needed to measure the influence of these
apprenticeship programs on students’ understanding of the
nature of science and scientific inquiry.
Significance of the Study
We designed this study is to understand how engagement
in scientific inquiry experiences in authentic settings
influence high school students’ understanding of the nature
of scientific inquiry and nature of science. We believe the
results of this study will enhance our understanding of
current practices, guide us in understanding how to best
structure these experiences to enhance students’ personal
engagement with science in a way that is consistent with
epistemologies of science and practices of scientists. In
addition, we believe this study is important because such
an understanding can serve as a resource for scientists who
have limited knowledge of effective pedagogies to facilitate students’ learning about the process and products of
science. The following question guided this inquiry.
How does an authentic scientific research experience
over a sustained period of time (i.e., two academic
semesters) impact high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry?
Methods
This study was conducted through a qualitative case study
methodology (Merriam 1998). Merriam (1998) defines
case study as an in-depth investigation of an individual,
group or an event with the purpose of uncovering the
underlying causes of a problem observed with the individual or the group. Case studies are useful in educational
research because most educational phenomena cannot be
easily understood by establishing casual relationship
between two numbers. In order to gain an in-depth
understanding of the important issues such as finding out
about the influence of engagement in an authentic scientific
research experience over a sustained period of time on high
school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry and
NOS case study methodology proves to be useful. Case
study methodology is useful not only because it allow for
in-depth analysis of an issue, but it has potential to result in
hypotheses development that may be critical to addressing
123
406
an educational phenomena as important as students’
understanding of scientific inquiry and NOS.
Program Description
This study took place in a suburban high school in a
southeastern state in the United States of America. The
participants were recruited from Seminole Science Academy (SSA) program (pseudo name). The goal of the program is to enhance high school students’ interest in science
through participation in authentic scientific research at a
research-intensive university or a national science laboratory. The program provides research based, lab driven, field
experiences in science, engineering, math, and/or technology fields for the participants.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) legitimate peripheral participation theory guided the design of this program. Lave
and Wenger (1991) characterize learning as ‘‘legitimate
peripheral participation in communities of practice’’
(p. 30). Two terms, legitimate and peripheral, are central to
this apprenticeship-based model of learning. The terms
legitimate and peripheral mean that there are multiple
levels of participation in the practices of a community.
Those who can fully and effectively participate in the
practices of a community are considered to be legitimate
participants. Those who are not able to fully participate in
the practices of a community are considered as peripheral
participants. Peripheral participants are less engaged in the
practices of community, and have a limited understanding
of the values of the community in which they are a part.
In our study we conceptualize the community of practice
as a group of scientists who are conducting authentic scientific research at a research-intensive university or a
national laboratory, with a group of high school students
trying to achieve legitimacy by participating in authentic
scientific inquiry. These scientists engage in basic/professional research, employing epistemologies of science, the
norm and values of scientific community. Novice scientists
are high school students, who are intentional learners;
supported by their mentor teachers, school administrators
and university mentors to engage in the activities of expert
scientists.
When describing the path to the legitimacy, Lave and
Wenger (1991) state: ‘‘learner inevitably is to participate in
communities of practitioners and that the mastery of
knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward
full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community’’ (p. 29). Thus, in this apprenticeship model, novices are introduced into the community of expert scientists
through discourse in the context of relevant tasks. In the
context of this study, we consider someone to be a legitimate participant if he/she engages in everyday professional
activities practiced by expert scientists using the norms of
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
scientific community, holds adequate understanding of
NOS and scientific inquiry, and is recognized by self and
meaningful others (i.e., expert scientists) as capable of
doing science. Thus, the expected learning outcomes for
the students included: an adequate understanding of the
nature of science, scientific inquiry and aspirations to
become scientists. The university/lab mentors (i.e., scientists) were conscious of the goals of the program (i.e.,
helping students to develop adequate understanding of the
scientific inquiry, experience the process of scientific
inquiry and develop interest in science and related careers)
as they all went through the orientation and volunteered to
mentor these academically gifted novice scientists. In
addition, we interacted with these scientist mentors and
engaged in conversations with them about students’ experiences in a frequent manner. The content of our conversations suggest that the scientist mentors are aware of the
goals of the program.
Selection of Participants
We selected the participants into the program based on
teacher recommendations that addressed students’ enthusiasm for science, responsibility, initiative and ability to
work independently. Students are required to be on track to
complete three core science courses (chemistry, biology,
and physics) and two science electives, one at the advanced
placement (AP) level. We select the participants for the
program either during the spring semester of their sophomore or junior year.
Students participating in research at the university,
choose a project from descriptions of ongoing projects
provided by potential university/national laboratory faculty
mentors. Students register for one credit hour per term;
however, the credit hour assigned does not limit the
number of hours a student may work in the laboratory. The
university faculty mentor, the teacher mentor, and the
students determine this arrangement. Students also receive
one high school credit for each semester they participate in
these research experiences.
Students conducting research at the national laboratory
submit an application describing their qualifications and
interests and are selected by a scientist mentor accordingly.
At the beginning of each project, the students meet with the
scientist mentor to outline the project and expectations.
While it is understood that the instruction will involve
participation of graduate students and post-doctoral associates, the scientist mentor is directly responsible for
working with the students and monitoring their progress.
Although the university/national lab mentors (i.e., scientists) were conscious of the goals of the program, different mentors and lab contexts provided different
experiences to the participants. For instance, while all
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
students participated in the ‘‘doing of science’’, not all lab
contexts engaged students in a discourse designed to
explicitly nurture participants’ understanding of NOS and
scientific inquiry. Moreover, while the majority of mentors
guided the students through the entire scientific process,
some of them were more hands—off and encouraged students’ autonomy. The majority of mentors welcomed the
students into an existing research project, debriefed the
participants about the purpose of the study, trained them
about the use of instruments that they used to collect and
analyze data, and guided the students to analyze and
interpret data to draw conclusions. A statement such as
‘‘My mentor and the graduate students at the lab explained
the processes and the background. Then, the graduate
students showed me the techniques needed, step-by-step
and explained the reasons why we were doing each step’’
was common across all participants. Although the majority
of students did not form a research question, they engaged
in various activities that the scientists themselves do following the norms of expert scientific community. For
instance, one student said, ‘‘I did a little bit of everything in
the project ranging from designing reactions, purification,
collecting, analyzing data and writing conclusions.’’ Some
students provided specific answers about their experiences
in the lab. To indicate the diversity in the activities that the
student engaged in we provide the following two excerpts
as examples of students’ learning experiences in these
authentic settings (these students’ research questions were
not revealed because of confidentiality).
Student A: The graduate students took me through the
procedures and showed me how to use the equipment.
We synthesized the monomer and polymer, and then
collected data through NMR and GPC techniques and
analyzed the data. We also collected data from rheology,
which shows viscosity, flow, and viscoelasticity.
Student B: I looked at the curve and my mentor
explained how to interpret the curve. I received help
from my mentor in interpreting the results, and the
protocols to use for RNA and DNA extraction. I looked
at my data and thought about whether or not it supported
my hypothesis. My graduate student mentor and my
faculty mentor both helped me interpret my results.
Student reports reveal that all participants engaged in data
collection and analysis, and all of them received some sort
of help either from their mentors, the graduate student or
both throughout the process. While the student autonomy
was encouraged in most cases, the mentors provided
guidance and help throughout the process.
After participating in scientific research in an authentic
setting, the students present the results of their scientific
investigations at a poster session hosted by the SSA. The
SSA poster sessions, conducted in December and May of
407
each year, are billed as ‘‘academic pep rallies.’’ Local
officials, University deans and mentors, mentors from the
national lab, parents, and community members come to
learn about and celebrate the work done by these students.
Mentors, community members, local officials, students,
and high school teachers interact; focus on the work of
these students by listening to their explanations and asking
them questions about their projects.
Participants
The participants for this study were 17 high school students, recruited from juniors and seniors who completed
their projects for the 2009 school year. Sample consisted of
ten males and seven females. Ten participants self-identified themselves as of Asian, six as of White and one as of
Hispanic origin. Each participant engaged in the authentic
scientific research experience over a period of two academic semesters.
Data Sources
Three types of data were collected in this study: students’
responses to a likert-scale nature of science (NOS) survey
(see ‘‘Appendix 1’’) informed by (Chen 2006), and
designed based on the NOS themes emphasized in VNOS
(Lederman et al. 2002) (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’), their responses
to the Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI) (Schwartz et al.
2008) and their responses to a set of 23 open-ended
questions survey (Seminole Science Academy Survey
[SSAS]) (see ‘‘Appendix 2’’) that focused on nature of
students’ participation in scientific research. The content of
the likert-scale NOS survey is displayed in Table 1.
While nine of the 23 questions in the open-ended survey
focus on students’ attitudes towards scientific research, and
the structures (i.e., parents socioeconomic status, teacher
mentoring) that helped them to gain access to the program,
the rest of questions focus on students’ learning about the
Table 1 Content of NOS survey
Statement #
NOS aspect emphasized
1, 2, 3, 4, 18
Understanding of theory formation
1, 2
Understanding of theory formation,
alternative explanations
5
Tentative nature of science
6, 7, 8
Creativity and imagination
9, 10
Subjectivity/objectivity
11
Importance of verification in science
12, 13
4, 14, 17
Multiplicity in methods of inquiry
Empirically based nature of science
15, 16
Definition of science
123
408
epistemologies of scientific inquiry in the context of their
research experiences. These questions were designed in a
way to help us understand how engagement in scientific
research contributed to their learning about the epistemologies and practices of science. In addition, we used an
18 item, likert scale NOS survey (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’) to
understand participants’ beliefs about various aspects of
NOS. We did not use the open-ended VNOS instrument
because we did not want to overwhelm the students as we
were already asking them to do too much with the VOSI
and the open-ended questionnaire. We acknowledge the
limitation of the likert-scale NOS instrument but think that
it gave us a proxy of students’ understanding related to
various aspects of NOS emphasized in VNOS. Five science
educators who study NOS looked at the NOS survey (Chen
2006) and agreed that it emphasized all aspects of NOS in
the VNOS instrument (Lederman et al. 2002) with the
exception of social and cultural influences on the nature of
science.
Data Analysis
Three sets of data were analyzed, students’ responses to a
general questionnaire that prompted students to describe
the nature of their experiences and experiments, their
responses to Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI), and a
nature of science survey. We analyzed participants’
responses to the questionnaire to characterize the learning
discourse (i.e., their experiences in the labs) and report on
the types of learning that took place while students were in
the laboratories and the level of autonomy that was given to
the students. For instance, some of the responses given by
the students were categorized based on whether the experience helped the participants to engage in scientific epistemologies or just activities such as simple data collection
that has no epistemic value. These data helped us to situate
students’ responses related to the nature of scientific
inquiry and NOS in a relevant context and interpret their
responses accordingly.
Students’ responses to VOSI and general questionnaire
(Appendix 2) were evaluated based on their epistemic
value related to various aspects of science by the authors
over a sustained period of time. These aspects included the
nature of scientific investigations, the role of hypothesis in
he process of scientific inquiry, the difference between
evidence and data, the difference between observation and
experimentation, the nature of theory development, the
empirical basis of scientific knowledge, the subjectivity of
scientific inquiry, and the social nature of scientific inquiry.
Each author independently reviewed data and gave a score
of ‘‘acceptable response’’ or ‘‘not acceptable response’’ for
each student and each question. Then, the authors collectively reviewed students’ responses, compared their
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
scoring decisions to come to a consensus about the quality
of students’ responses. However, from time to time we
encountered responses that did not fit in either of the categories (i.e., acceptable and not acceptable). In that case,
authors conducted further analyses and engaged in collective decision making about the validity of the epistemic
value of each student’s response to place the student in the
closest category. This rigorous process of evaluation was
followed in an effort to reduce bias and subjectivity.
Finally, we analyzed students’ responses to the NOS survey to assess students’ understanding of various aspects of
NOS. Participants’ understanding related to various aspects
of NOS were evaluated as being either acceptable or not
acceptable. If the participant either strongly agree or just
agreed with the statement about a certain aspect of NOS on
the survey the answer was considered acceptable, if the
participant disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
statement, the answer was not considered acceptable
(Appendix 3). Those who expressed a neutral view were
also considered not acceptable because we were interested
in finding out how the experience in this authentic inquiry
setting helped the participants to develop an adequate view
about various aspects of NOS. We were not interested in
creating student profiles (e.g., naı̈ve, developing, sophisticated) related to their overall understanding of NOS.
For students’ understanding related to each aspect of
scientific inquiry and NOS, we developed assertions,
evaluated the validity of these assertions through the process of peer review and repeated readings of the raw data.
The final assertions were reached through triangulation of
data and consensus among the authors. Assertions about
student learning in relation to scientific inquiry was drawn
based on students’ responses to a survey on students’
experiences in the program (see ‘‘Appendix 2’’), Views of
Scientific Inquiry (VOSI) instrument (Schwartz et al. 2008)
and the nature of science survey (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’). Each
assertion was supported by quotations from students’
responses to the likert scale NOS survey, VOSI or both. In
order to maintain confidentiality we did not report the
research questions that the participants worked on while
providing supporting quotes from participants’ responses.
Quality Criteria
Prolonged engagement with participants and the context of
a study is a desirable goal when conducting a qualitative
study to ensure quality criteria (Guba and Lincoln 1989).
Two of the authors were actively engaged in the recruitment, placement and monitoring of students’ research
experiences. This prolonged engagement took place
through weekly meetings with the program participants in
the science academy course. The mentor teachers who are
the coauthors in this paper inquired about students’
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
experiences in the laboratories, listened to their questions
and concerns. They attended regular meetings with the
faculty at the university, organized and supervised two
poster sessions which allowed the participants to share the
reports of their research with their teachers, mentors, students and general public. This active and constant form of
communication provided invaluable insights into the
experiences, motivation, and learning of the participants
pertinent to the focus of this study. More important,
coauthors’ understandings of students’ experiences in the
science laboratories enabled us to make better judgments
about students’ responses to the written assessments.
Results
We report findings related to high school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and science after
participating in an authentic scientific research program
over a sustained period of time (two academic semesters).
The results are reported thematically.
Nature of Student Learning: Focus on Knowledge
and Skills About Methods of Doing Science
Helping students to acquire knowledge and skills to perform scientific inquiry was one of the explicit goals of the
SSA. Therefore, it is important to understand the influence
of the program on participants’ knowledge and skills to do
science.
Findings revealed that the majority of the participants
(15/17), learned to use specific instruments for conducting
their research, including data collection and analysis. For
instance, one student said:
I learned the techniques used in the polymer chemistry lab, including synthesis of monomer and polymer, the processes in which chemists verify the
solutions, and the data analysis involved. I also
learned the details of atom transfer radical polymerization involving the steps of initiation, propagation,
chain transfer, and termination.
Another student said, ‘‘I learned molecular techniques like
RNA and DNA extraction, how to use RT-PCR machine.’’
One student expressed his amazement by the quality of
techniques he learned by saying, ‘‘I learned many standard
laboratory techniques that are used by biochemists and
molecular biologists around the world. The methodologies
and laboratory protocols I learned were more advanced
than I had expected. Phenotypic expressions of cells after
transfection.’’
As these excerpts indicate, participants learned very
advanced data collection and analysis techniques that they
409
would not have had access to in traditional school science
laboratories. Developing knowledge of specific data collection and analysis techniques may help novices to feel
confident about their abilities to do science and thus to
pursue advanced opportunities in scientific research beyond
high school.
Participants’ Understanding of the Nature of Scientific
Inquiry
The specific learning outcomes that were assessed in this
domain include, students’ understanding of the nature of
scientific investigations, the difference between evidence
and data, the difference between observations and experimentation, nature of data analysis, the singularity of the
scientific method, the process of theory formation, the
tentative nature of scientific knowledge and the role of
consensus building during the process of knowledge
generation.
Difference Between Observations and Experiments
The majority of participants (15/17) showed an adequate
understanding of the difference between an experiment and
an observation. Participants’ level of understanding was
measured based on their evaluation of the bird scenario
question on the VOSI. We considered a statement such as,
‘‘No, this is not an experiment. There is no control or
replications, thus it is not an experiment’’ as reflecting an
adequate understanding, and a statement such as ‘‘Yes,
because they are trying to find why there are these differences between such like animals’’ as reflecting a naive
understanding of scientific experimentation. The participants were also asked to evaluate whether the person’s
observations and the conclusions in the bird scenario were
scientific or not.
The results showed that only two students out of the 17
who participated in this study were not able to make a
distinction between a scientific investigation and experimentation. One of the students who did not consider the
observation as scientific stated, ‘‘No, this is not an investigation. This is only a study. For his hypothesis to be
trustworthy he would have to design an experiment with
controls. This is a logical conclusion, but it cannot be
called scientific.’’ It is obvious that this student emphasized
the empirical nature of scientific investigations but did not
consider observational data as being part of the scientific
process. A statement such as, ‘‘Yes, although he did not
follow the scientific method, he observed his environment
and found a correlation that may explain a problem that he
found’’, was considered to reflect an acceptable level of
understanding about the nature of scientific investigations.
This was considered as an acceptable answer because the
123
410
student did not limit the scientific inquiry to the scientific
experimentation. Limiting scientific investigations to
experimentation reflects a naı̈ve understanding of the nature of scientific investigations. This is because scientific
experimentation constitutes only one aspect of the process
of the scientific knowledge generation.
Difference Between Data and Evidence
Understanding the difference between data and evidence is
an important aspect of a sophisticated NOS understanding.
The findings revealed that only 11 out of 17 participants
were able to emphasize the difference between data and
evidence. A statement such as, ‘‘Data means evidence to
confirm or not confirm a hypothesis’’, or ‘‘They are similar
because they’re both information’’ was considered to
reflect an inaccurate understanding about the difference
between data and evidence. A statement such as, ‘‘They are
different in that data does not have to prove anything while
evidence is usually used in support of an idea’’ was considered to reflect an acceptable understanding about the
difference between evidence and data. As evidenced in
students’ responses, a significant number of the participants
(6/17) were not able to develop sophisticated understanding about the difference between evidence and data after
engaging in scientific experiments over two academic
semesters.
Singularity or Multiplicity of Scientific Inquiry Methods
One of the misconceptions that both the students and
teachers of science hold about the nature of scientific
inquiry is that scientists use one single universal scientific
method to do science (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman
2000; McComas 1996; Windschitl et al. 2008).
Findings suggest that all participants viewed science as a
way of thinking about the world around us. The majority of
participants (13/17) stated that scientists use multiple
methods to solve a problem. However, they all indicated
that each alternative method must be consistent with the
scientific method. While some students limited the process
of scientific inquiry to the scientific method, starting with
observations and ending with data interpretations and
conclusions, others expressed more sophisticated understandings about the process of scientific inquiry. For
instance, while one student said, ‘‘I learned that scientists
do background research, form a hypothesis, observe, collect data, analyze data, draw conclusions, and test those
conclusions’’, Another student who also viewed science
only through the lens of the scientific method said, ‘‘I
learned the processes of scientific research, first beginning
with a goal and finally, being able to interpret the results.’’
While the first student characterized science as the testing
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
of a hypothesis through the scientific method, the latter
emphasized the interpretation of the results related to a
problem. Yet, both students had a naı̈ve understanding in
this domain because they did not acknowledge that scientific inquiry is a messy cyclic process and not a step-bystep rigid process (Windschitl et al. 2008).
Only few students (4) were able to view the process of
scientific inquiry through a sophisticated perspective. The
following statement is an example of a student who held a
sophisticated perspective in this domain. The student said,
‘‘There is no one route to true scientific investigation due to
the fact that people perceive and examine things differently. Paralleling this is the thought that any method used
to make conjectures about the world can be considered
scientific.’’ This particular student believed that scientists
use multiple methods to do science and emphasized the
diverse ways in which people perceive, examine and analyze things as his justification. Another student, who
emphasized the messy side of scientific inquiry said, ‘‘I
learned that much of our research is based on trial and
error. You can’t start off in the dark, but you don’t have to
know it all. I learned this by watching grad students’ progress in their projects.’’
Although the views of scientific inquiry expressed by
the majority of the participants acknowledge the diverse
methods in which scientists engage in their work, participation in these authentic scientific experiences led a sizable
number of students to reinforce their existing naı̈ve beliefs
that the scientific method is the only method that the scientists use to generate knowledge. It is our interpretation
that the participants held this naı̈ve view about the process
of science even after doing science themselves for two
semesters because most scientists use the language of the
scientific method in their laboratories, even though how
they perform scientific inquiry does not always follow the
step-by-step procedures suggested by the scientific method.
Role of Hypothesis Formation in the Process of Scientific
Investigations
Findings suggest that while almost all students (16/17) held
sophisticated views about the process of hypothesis formation, the majority of them (12/17) held naı̈ve views
about the role of hypothesis formation in the process of
scientific inquiry. The participants who held a naı̈ve view
stated that scientists must have a hypothesis before they
can study a problem. They claimed that without a
hypothesis the process would not be considered scientific
because it would have no purpose. One example of such
statement is, ‘‘Because the whole point of doing an
experiment is to get information about what you thought in
the beginning.’’ Another student who had similar understanding stated, ‘‘If you aren’t trying to prove something
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
you can’t really prove anything about it.’’ Another student
with a similar understanding stated that, ‘‘They [scientists]
must have good reasons or support to perform an experiment. Before the collection, they must already predict what
will happen or have a hypothesis’’ This view is problematic
in the sense that it may lead students to use confirmatory
bias method (Dunbar 2001) in their treatment of data
during the process of identifying evidence to support a
hypothesis. This is problematic because sometimes data
that is not related to the proposed hypothesis can lead to
new understandings. In fact, the participants further reinforced this understanding when we analyzed their responses related to scientists’ treatment of unexpected results.
Only five students’ views in this domain were considered acceptable. The students who held an acceptable view
though acknowledged that scientists conduct research by
forming and following a hypothesis, they were also able to
recognize that scientists may come up with hypothesis
during the process. The following is one example of such
sophisticated understanding. ‘‘Scientific investigation does
not have to have a particular question to be answered. In
many cases, study of a field can create such questions to be
answered.’’ However, the majority of participants held a
naı̈ve view about the role of hypothesis in the process of
scientific inquiry.
Scientists’ Treatment of Unexpected Findings
Scientists often use casual reasoning to establish the relationship between a hypothesis and data to identify evidence
for theory formation (Dunbar 1997). However, not all
experiments produce evidence in support of a proposed
hypothesis because of mistakes in their data collection
methods or any other reason. Mistakes in science are
common and occur for several reasons. Scientists sometimes use the unexpected results that are only distantly
related to the proposed hypothesis to make new discoveries
or to develop new understanding into the very problem that
they are trying to solve (Dunbar 1997). However, the
process of making mistakes itself is not as important as
identifying and reacting to the mistakes. It was hoped that
the participants would be able to develop an understanding
into the ways in which expert scientists treat the unexpected findings.
Findings showed that the participants did not develop a
sophisticated understanding about the ways in which scientists deal with the unexpected results. Almost all of the
participants believed that the scientists use the confirmation
bias method in their treatment of unexpected results. In
other words, the majority of students (16 out of 17)
believed that scientists only use the data that support their
hypothesis and ignore data that are not related to their
proposed hypothesis. One student who held a naı̈ve view
411
said, ‘‘scientists either engage in a reevaluation of experimental procedures or a repetition of an experiment’’ when
their data fails to support their hypothesis. Another student
said, ‘‘They try to remove it [errors] by altering methods or
they run more tests to get the data they want.’’ The one
student who held a relatively sophisticated view said,
‘‘They [scientists] embrace it [unexpected result]! Sometimes discoveries are made by accidents or unpredicted
results.’’
The participants’ responses indicate that scientists act in
three distinct ways in their treatment of unexpected results:
re-running the experiments by using the original methods
to produce the expected results, modifying or changing the
experimental methods to produce the expected results,
asking other scientists for an explanation for the inconsistency observed in their data. Only one student believed that
scientists use the unexpected results to develop new
understandings. The rest of the participants believed scientists engaged in one of these activities mentioned above
to produce results that would support their hypotheses.
Process of Theory Formation
Findings suggest that only a small number of the participants (2/17) had an acceptable level of understanding about
the ways in which scientists develop theories. The participants emphasized various aspects of theory development.
Some emphasized that scientists develop theories starting
with making assumptions about the patterns they see in
their observations in their studies, others emphasized that
scientists verify the results of their experiments through
multiple testing. For instance, one participant, who
emphasized the role of verification in theory development
said, ‘‘They [scientists] develop them after much verification and time. They conduct more experiments in different
procedures and if they conclude the same thing, it goes
on the way to become a theory.’’ Another student said,
‘‘Theories are developed from critical thinking and noticing trends.’’ Similarly, other participants emphasized that
scientists develop theories by coordinating between their
proposed hypothesis and the patterns they see in their data.
The majority of participants (15/17) believed that theories are developed based on empirical evidence. Only two
participants pointed out the social aspect of theory development. One of these two students said, ‘‘They [scientists]
think about it a lot and discuss with many different people
before they develop a theory.’’ The majority of participants
(12/17) disregarded the possibility of alternative explanations and emphasized that there is only one single scientifically valid explanation of natural phenomenon.
In sum, findings revealed that the participants held naı̈ve
understandings about the process of theory development.
Only two participants were able to provide a complete
123
412
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
picture of how scientists developed theories. The rest of
participants provided an incomplete answer in that they
only emphasized one single aspect of theory development
(i.e., scientists develop theories based on trends they see in
their data or empirical evidence). The majority of participants who engaged in theory development during their
internships were not able to elaborate on how scientists
developed theories. However, the majority did acknowledge the empirically based nature of scientific theories.
Subjectivity/Objectivity of Scientific Inquiry
Novice scientists’ understanding of the subjective nature of
science is critical for their competency in science. Students’ understanding of the subjective nature of the scientific inquiry was measured through two questions in
VOSI. The first question was, ‘‘How do scientists decide
what and how to investigate?’’ The second question that
measured students’ understanding in this domain was, ‘‘If
several scientists, working independently, ask the same
question and follow the same procedures to collect data,
will they necessarily come to the same conclusions?
Explain why or why not.’’ The majority of the participants
were able to acknowledge the subjectivity embedded in the
process of knowledge generation in science. The majority
of the students believed that scientists investigate things
based on what is important to them and to the good of
society. ‘‘They decide through what is important in the
world today and what they are interested in.’’ was a very
common answer across all participants. An example of a
more elaborate answer is ‘‘Scientists decide what to
investigate by seeing a problem and wanting to fix that
problem. Factors that influence the work of scientists
Table 2 Sample response
related to participants’
understanding of the subjective
nature of science
include their individual interests, the technology available,
and the financial resources available to conduct that
research.’’ Although all participants acknowledged the
subjective nature of scientific inquiry, more than half of the
participants indicated their agreement or strong agreement
with the statement ‘‘scientists can abandon personal biases
to make objective observations because they are well
trained professionals.’’
Participants’ understanding of the subjective nature of
scientific investigations was further assessed based on their
answers to the 4th question on VOSI. An example of an
acceptable answer is provided below (Table 2).
When we analyzed all participants’ responses in this
category, we concluded that all participants had an
acceptable level of understanding about the subjective
nature of scientific investigations. However, some participants’ understandings were more sophisticated than others.
For instance, while some students limited the subjectivity
of the scientific investigations to the type of research that
the scientists do, others emphasized the subjectivity of
scientists in the type of methods they use to investigate a
problem, or to analyze data. Similarly, some students
pointed out that different scientists may use different evidence from the same data set, different scientists may not
achieve the same level of precision in their data, which in
turn could lead to different interpretations. Some students
pointed out that different scientists may use different logic
in making the connections between their hypothesis and
evidence to draw conclusions. In sum, all participants
emphasized the subjective nature of scientific investigations in their responses, however, half of them failed to
acknowledge that scientists’ personal biases may influence
their observations.
VOSI question
Student response
Do you think that scientific investigations can
follow more than one method?
There is no one route to true scientific investigation
due to the fact that people perceive and examine
things differently. Paralleling this is the thought that
any method used to make conjectures about the
world around us can be considered scientific
If several scientists, working independently, ask the No, there is always error in experiments, and people
same question and follow the same procedures to interpret data differently based on their own
collect data, will they necessarily come to the
education and learning experiences
same conclusions? Explain why or why not
If several scientists, working independently, ask the No. Disparate procedures often lead to different
same question and follow different procedures to results because of the methods used to attain the
collect data, will they necessarily come to the
results
same conclusions? Explain why or why not
Does your response to (a) change if the scientists
are working together? Explain
Does your response to (b) change if the scientists
are working together? Explain
123
This scenario also does not necessarily yield the same
results because of disparities in how people
interpret information
No. The scientist can still obtain different results
through different experiments
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
Tentative Nature of Science
Findings revealed that all participants but two had
sophisticated understandings about the tentative nature of
science. Those who emphasized the tentative nature of
science provided diverse reasons. These reasons include
‘‘sophistication of new technologies can make new evidence available which could lead to modifications in old
theory, and the existing theories can be modified based on
new interpretations.’’ Another student said, Theories can
change because they are only a model that represents the
way things work. Some students provided specific examples to communicate their understandings of the tentative
nature of science. For instance, one student said, ‘‘Yes.
Galileo’s theory concerning heliocentricity changed, in fact
revolutionized, scientific theories of his day. In the same
way, scientific laws that bind the world we live in can be
changed through new discoveries.’’ Another student who
also held a sophisticated view in this domain of NOS said,
‘‘For instance, when Neil Bohr came forth with his model
of the atom, it became a theory, but later it was disproved
and the actual structure of an atom was unveiled.’’ The
results show that all participants but two held a sophisticated understanding about the tentative nature of science.
Science as Collective Reasoning and Knowledge
Generation Activity
It is now well established at least in the science education
literature that scientific discoveries and knowledge are the
products of collective reasoning and shared understanding
about the questions, processes and product of scientific
explorations (Knorr-Cetina 1999; Longino 1990; Schwartz
et al. 2008). Scientists share their knowledge and experience through lab meetings, conference presentations and
journal publications (Dunbar 1997). Scientists often make
their thinking subject to scrutiny by sharing their initial
research questions with their fellow scientists, graduate
students and the local and global scientific community
(Dunbar 1997). By sharing their research questions and
ideas with their fellow scientists, scientists are able to
monitor their thinking and reasoning, revise their initial
ideas or solidify them in collaboration with the members of
their specific research groups or the global scientific
community. It was hoped that by participating in these
unique research activities, the participants would develop
insights into the unique ways in which scientists collaborate, evaluate and elaborate on scientific discoveries during
various stages of scientific inquiry.
Findings suggest that all participants recognized that
science is a collaborative effort conducted by different
members, each with special level of expertise, skills
knowledge and power. However, not all participants
413
expressed a sophisticated understanding in this domain.
One participant who believed science is the product of a
collaborative effort said, ‘‘Scientific knowledge is the
collective effort between various scientists. From my
research experience, I learned that collaboration is crucial
to help find solutions to multivariable problems.’’ Another
student who also believed in collective nature of scientific
knowledge said, ‘‘Scientific knowledge is probably the
collective effort between many scientists. Since there needs
to be many experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis, I
feel that there needs to be more than one scientist to
establish data and conclusions.’’ Most of these students
referred to their own experiences to justify their answers in
addition to their beliefs. For instance, one participant said,
For example, many graduate students helped me in my
microbiology experiment. If I had worked all by myself, I
am sure that I would have messed up lots of data. Another
participant who also highlighted the collaborative nature of
science said the following:
At weekly board meetings the members of my
research team voiced their opinions on how the
experiment should run. One week one graduate student suggested moving my test tubes to a rack with
different light strength, and in another Matt asked me
to start recording data into an Excel spreadsheet.
They formed assertions by gathering evidence and
making an informed hypothesis, and they later validated assertions by observing the test tubes a few
weeks later.
Although the majority of the participants expressed such a
sophisticated view on the collective nature of scientific
knowledge generation and the process of scientific inquiry,
not all participants were able to elaborate on their
responses at a level that the ones reported above did.
Thus, there were variations in the quality of responses
given by the participants as expected.
Participants’ Understanding of Various Aspects
of Scientists’ Ways of Thinking
Scientists are constantly adding to our understanding of the
natural and physical world by generating new knowledge
and technologies that facilitate the process of knowledge
generation. Scientists are able to do this partly because they
have unique ways in which they think, reason and function
while solving complex problems (Dunbar 1995; Kulkarni
and Simon 1988). They apply these specific ways of reasoning in contexts where these special skills of reasoning
are called for, such as when they are engaged in scientific
inquiry in the university laboratories. Although scientists
may use these specific reasoning skills during the process
of scientific inquiry, some of their thinking may not be
123
414
visible to the novice scientists such as these high school
students who spent two semesters in their laboratories.
Therefore, it is important to explore the participants’
understandings of the ways in which scientists think and
function.
Findings suggest that the participants developed unique
insights and understandings about the ways in which scientists think and function. These characteristics include:
creativity and critical thinking (17/17), being methodological (15/17), questioning to verify data (17/17) and their
interpretations (13/17). We elaborate on participants’
responses related to scientists’ ways of thinking in the
following paragraphs.
Critical Thinking and Creativity
All participants (17/17), expressed that critical thinking and
creativity is central to the practices of scientists. One participant said, ‘‘Scientists many times have to think outside
the box to develop their hypothesis and design their
experiments.’’ The same student justified his answer by
saying, ‘‘This is mainly due to the fact that when doing
research they do not know what the outcome is going to
be.’’ Another student who also emphasized the creativity
and critical thinking aspects of scientists said, ‘‘Scientists
must think critically and creatively, and they must be able
to understand the details and reasons for doing their
experiments. From experience, I was able to learn how to
think this way and how to solve problems.’’
The statements that emphasized the creative ways in
which scientists think and reason was common across all
other participants as well. However, only eight participants
acknowledged that scientists’ imaginations play a central
role in the process of theory development.
Scientists are Methodological
Another common theme that consistently emerged across
the participants’ responses was that scientists are very
methodological and that scientists must be very holistic in
their approach to solving a problem. For instance, one
student said, ‘‘They seem to be very thorough and think
about all possibilities’’ Another one said, ‘‘I learned that
scientists approach experiments with a very systematic
process and not some arbitrary feeling.’’ The findings
suggest that although the participants thought that the scientists are methodological, they were able to understand
that scientists look and analyze things from diverse perspectives. For instance one student said, ‘‘They are very
methodological. They seem to look at a problem from
about 3–4 different angels’’ Another participant, who also
emphasized the open mindness of scientists said, ‘‘they
have to have a keen and open mind when performing
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
research.’’ Yet another participant said, ‘‘I learned they
always look at result in multiple angles, so that all areas of
thought are covered.’’
Scientists Question
Another common characteristic of scientists that was
emphasized by all of the participants was that scientists
frequently question their methods, their data and the results
of their analysis. With respect to questioning one student
said, ‘‘I learned that scientists are always questioning their
results throughout the entire research process.’’ The participants emphasized that scientists use questioning to
achieve precision and identify inconsistencies in data and
interpretations. For instance one student said, ‘‘They
always question. I learned this myself, too. I was always
hesitant to accept a result and completed many replications
of my data before making conclusions.’’ Another participant said, ‘‘Scientists are EXTREMELY thorough with
their note taking, and document every step they take. They
don’t think hastily or halfway.’’ Yet another student said,
‘‘Scientists have to be very precise and collect data at the
same time everyday in order to get the most accurate
results. I learned these things through experience and
time—sometimes I felt like my results were completely
wrong and that I would have to do the whole experiment
over again.’’
Verification of the experimental results is as important
as the achievement of precision in a scientific experiment.
The participants learned that scientists have skeptical
habits of minds and that scientists use this skeptical habit of
mind to collect quality evidence and to develop defendable
explanations for the solution to the problems they are
studying. For instance one student said, ‘‘I learned to never
to jump to conclusions. I learned that a lot of thought is put
into every step so that when it is time to publish the project
all arguments have been defended.’’ This particular student
learned that scientific theories are subject to community
scrutiny, therefore, scientists must verify the evidence and
methods they use to collect evidence to support their theories through multiple methods. As evidenced in these
statements given by the participants, the participants
learned about various aspects of the scientific habits of
minds employed by expert scientists.
The cumulative results related to participants’ understanding of NOS and scientific inquiry are reported in
Table 3.
Discussion and Conclusions
Scientific inquiry in the context of formal education in k-12
settings is limited to the ‘‘scientific method’’ in most cases
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
415
Table 3 Cumulative results related to participants’ understanding of
NOS and scientific inquiry
Aspects of science
Acceptable
Observation and experimentation
15/17
88
Difference between data and evidence
11/17
65
Multiplicity of methods of inquiry
13/17
76
5/17
29
16/17
94
1/17
5
2/17
17/17
11
100
Role of hypothesis in scientific inquiry
Process of hypothesis formation
Scientists’ treatment of unexpected results
Process of theory formation
Subjectivity/objectivity
%
Tentative nature of science
15/17
88
Science as a collective knowledge
building activity
17/17
100
Creativity and critical thinking
17/17
100
Scientists are methodological
15/17
88
Scientists constantly question to verify data
17/17
100
Scientists constantly question to verify
the validity of their interpretations
13/17
76
(Abrams et al. 2007; Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Harding
and Hare 2000; Rudolph 2005; Windschitl et al. 2008). The
scientific method consists of a set of step-by-step procedures that range from making simple observations, asking a
question based on these observations, controlling and
varying variables, analyzing and interpreting data to reinforce conclusions about the scientific ideas expressed in
science textbooks (Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Edmond
2005; Sandoval and Reiser 2004; Windschitl et al. 2008).
Students engage in ‘‘scientific inquiry’’ by collectively
completing a set of activities and either individually or
collectively answering a set of questions about their
observations at the end of the lab. This narrow view of
scientific inquiry encourages the students to endorse a
positivist view of science (Charney et al. 2007) in that it
unintentionally encourages students to view science as a
rigid, unquestionable body of valid knowledge generated
by following a step-by-step process (Chinn and Malhotra
2002; Tang et al. 2008). Similarly, it encourages students
to limit scientific inquiry to experimentation.
The two most prominent goals of science education
reform efforts are to help students at all stages of education
and their teachers to develop adequate if not sophisticated
understandings about the nature of science and develop
understandings, knowledge and skills to successfully conduct scientific investigations. The type of understanding
and knowledge promoted in the reform documents goes
beyond learning to use the scientific method and memorization of scientific facts. The reform documents and contemporary science education literature view science as a
human endeavor aiming to generate better explanations of
the world around us through experimental and theoretical
investigations (AAAS 1993; Abrams et al. 2007; Windschitl et al. 2008). Thus, learning science through inquiry
goes far beyond learning to control and vary variables to
make simple observations and forming simple conclusions
in school laboratories (Lee and Songer 2003; Windschitl
et al. 2008; Zachos 2000). Authentic scientific inquiry
involves engagement in complex tasks and often requires
more than controlling and varying variables. Scientists use
sophisticated and multiple reasoning strategies to decide
what and how to observe, to make judgments about how to
relate their observations to what is already known about a
natural phenomena while doing science in authentic settings (Dunbar 2001; Russ 2006). They use complex reasoning strategies to develop multiple hypotheses, choose
the ones that have the best predictive power for explaining
their observations, and to make complex sets of predictions
and inferences to appropriately control variables, analyze
their results, interpret the results of their experiments, make
meaning of their analysis and develop evidence-based
explanations (i.e., theories) (Chinn and Malhotra 2002;
Dunbar 1997, 2001; Russ 2006). It follows that understanding the process and nature of science includes
understanding of the ways in which scientists think and
function, collaborate and challenge one another’s claims to
knowledge. The question then is: how do we ensure that
high school students acquire the type of knowledge, skills
and understandings needed for conducting scientific
investigations?
The purpose of this study was to understand the impact
of engagement in an authentic scientific research experience over a sustained period of time (i.e., two academic
semesters) on high school students’ understanding of the
nature of scientific inquiry and nature of science (NOS).
The findings revealed that the participants developed
abilities and knowledge to conduct scientific investigations.
Similarly, they gained unique insights into the ways in
which scientists think, reason and function (i.e., they
question, they think and work hard, they are methodological). Almost all students engaged in the doing of science
with the realization that their practices were consistent with
the norms of scientific community. They were engaged in
data collection, making observations, organizing, classifying and analyzing data and developing conclusions. They
also engaged in such activities as judging the quality and
reliability of evidence, coordinating between evidence and
theory and contributing to the development of arguments
that lived up to the standards of scientific community. For
instance, they served as lead authors in the development of
journal articles, conference proposals and poster presentations that lived up to the standards of scientific community.
In addition, they engaged in practices such as making the
123
416
results of their inquiry public and subject to criticism and
defend them through poster presentations in front of expert
scientists.
Although the participants were able to develop knowledge and skills to conduct scientific investigations, they did
not make the same progress in understanding the nature of
science. For instance, the participants were only able to
develop sophisticated understandings about the assumptions of science that are explicitly emphasized during the
process of scientific inquiry. For instance, although the
majority of participants understood the creativity that goes
into the work of scientists, the importance of precision
during data collection, the empirically-based nature of
scientific knowledge, the subjective and tentative nature of
scientific knowledge, the difference between experimentation and observation, only a small number of them
understood scientists’ treatment of unexpected results, the
process of theory development and the role of hypothesis
formation in the process of scientific investigations. Participants also held misconceptions about the methods of
science and the difference between data and evidence. The
majority of participants’ understanding of scientific inquiry
was limited to the scientific method. They did not see the
complex and messy side of the scientific inquiry. Some
participants’ understanding of theory development was as
simple as seeing patterns in data and drawing conclusions
based on such data with limited reference to the socially
negotiated nature of theory development. Although the
majority of the participants acknowledged that scientific
knowledge is the product of collective reasoning only few
were able to elaborate on what that meant.
The aspects that the participants did not achieve competency in are the implicit aspects of science that are hard
to learn by simply participating in actual process of scientific inquiry (Lederman 2007). These results lead us to
believe that engagement in scientific inquiry in authentic
contexts alone is not sufficient for novice scientists such as
the ones studied in this study to develop adequate understandings of the implicit assumptions of science such as the
steps and thinking that goes into the process of theory
development, the difference between evidence and data
and scientists’ treatment of unexpected results. If the goal
of such apprenticeship-based authentic scientific inquiry
programs is to prepare future scientists, to help them to
develop sophisticated understanding of the process and
products of science, the curriculum should be structured in
a way to explicitly challenge them to acquire the habits of
minds employed by scientists in each step of the way
through explicit instruction (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick
2002; Lederman 2007; Schwartz et al. 2004).
The participants’ learning was limited perhaps because
of an assumption made about scientists. One of the main
assumptions of these apprenticeship-based models of
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
teaching inquiry-based science is that the university professors or senior scientists in national labs know how to
mentor high school students and thus, to help them to
experience, understand and use the epistemologies of science (Sadler et al. 2010). The results of this study suggest
that the expert scientists are not as effective as they could
be in helping novice scientists (i.e., high school students) to
develop adequate understandings about all aspects of NOS
and scientific inquiry. These scientists could become more
effective in instilling the qualities that enable scientists to
do science and thus generate new knowledge if they could
teach the implicit assumptions of science in an explicit
manner to the novice learners. Explicit instruction is also
essential for ensuring the uniformity of learning outcomes
in relation to the epistemologies of science and practices of
scientists in such programs. That is because not all students
are given the opportunity to experience the full spectrum of
the scientific inquiry and are not explicitly challenged to
learn about the unique ways in which scientists think,
function and collaborate. Similarly, because of the variations in the tasks that the mentor scientists engage in, the
cognitive activities that they engage in, the context in
which they apply their cognitive skills, and the particular
objects that they focus on (Schwartz et al. 2008), participants were able to develop understandings about certain
aspects of science but not others.
The results indicate that the participants were exposed to
different expertise, and contexts, each of which may only
make specific types of knowledge and thinking explicit to
the students. While some students engaged in very complex, multivariate inquiries, others engaged in simple
observations of animal behaviors at the local zoo, collected
and analyzed data and developed conclusions. Similarly,
there were variations in terms of student autonomy while
conducting their scientific investigations. While some students received very focused mentoring from expert scientists such as professors, only a graduate student mentored
others. Engagement in diverse contexts and diversity in the
type of mentoring received by the participants from the
scientists at different levels of expertise may have influenced the variety in participants’ understanding of NOS
and scientific inquiry. For instance, expert, experienced
scientists have specific ways of dealing with anomalous
data than the novice scientists do (Dunbar 2001). Similarly,
though scientists often use general set of principles to
conduct an experiment and analyze data, some skills, ways
of thinking and procedures are only unique to specific
contexts. Schunn and Anderson (1999) maintain that each
specific science related task requires a unique set of
declarative and procedural knowledge and thus each
experiment affords only certain type of knowledge and
skills that can be acquired by the novice scientists (i.e.,
high school students). Explicit exposure to domain specific
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
facts, skills, schemata and ways of thinking acquired only
through prolonged engagement in research in a specific
domain of science can create invaluable learning opportunities for novice scientists such as the ones studied in this
study. In order to achieve uniformity of learning outcomes
across the participants the novice scientists should be
guided to engage in learning activities that emphasize the
global assumptions of the process and products of science.
Learning opportunities in authentic settings must be
structured in such ways that will allow the novice scientists
(i.e., high school students) not only to witness how scientists design experiments, interpret data and develop, verify
and defend theories but also understand why and how
scientists engage in individual and collective cognitive
activities they do to produce new knowledge. Only then the
desired uniformity and quality of learning outcomes across
participants may be achieved.
The results also suggest that for the novice scientists
such as the ones studied in this study to develop sophisticated understanding of the epistemologies science they
must receive explicit reflective instruction (Lederman
2007). However, even when expert scientists give such
instruction to the novices, they may still develop naı̈ve
views about NOS and scientific inquiry. This is because
expert scientists may not hold the type of emerging
understanding of NOS and scientific inquiry that the science education community promotes (Schwartz et al.
2008). However, this is a problem that can be addressed by
forming meaningful collaborations between scientists who
are skilled and have an in-depth understanding of the
process of scientific inquiry and science educators, who
have contemporary understanding of NOS and how to
teach it to the novices in an effective manner. If such
collaborations can be formed, participants of such programs may be able to develop sophisticated understanding
of the epistemologies of science, NOS and scientific
inquiry. The challenge waiting science educators is the
answer to the following question: How do we design
meaningful collaborations between scientists who are
interested in helping high school students to learn about
scientific experimentation and science educators who are
interested in helping aspiring high school students to
develop sophisticated understanding of NOS? The answers
to the questions such as this one are likely to make the
experiences of novice scientists such as the ones studied in
this project richer.
Limitations
Although the purpose of this study is not to generalize the
results, there are several limitations to this study that needs
to be mentioned. First, the participants in this study are
417
academically gifted students with successful academic
histories as measured by their performance in school science and mathematics courses. Without more data it is
difficult to claim that these results are due specifically to
participation in scientific inquiry in an authentic scientific
context. Second, students’ responses to an open-ended
questionnaire can only give us a proxy of what they know
about the process of science, nature of science and scientific ways of knowing. Students’ understandings about the
process of science and ways of science can better be captured through interviews. Although interviews can provide
more representative and meaningful data than an openended questionnaire can and allow for more in-depth
analysis, we did not have resources to interview the participants. We want our readers to keep these limitations in
mind as they think about the implications of these findings
for contexts that may be similar to the one studied in this
study.
Appendix 1: Understanding Nature of Science Survey
Directions
Please use the following likert scale for your answers to the
survey questions/statements.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
PART A. Consider the following question for statements for questions 1-2:
When two different theories arise to explain the same phenomenon (e.g., fossils of
dinosaurs), what should scientists do?
Show your answer by putting a check mark next to the likert scale comments.
1.
Scientists must consider both theories because the two theories may provide
explanations from different perspectives; there is no right or wrong answer in
science.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
2.
Scientists should not accept any theory before distinguishing which is best
through scientific method because there is only one truth about a natural
phenomenon.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
PART B. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.
3.
Scientists discover theories through careful observations and experimentation.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
4.
No, scientists must develop scientific theories by interpreting facts, which they
have discovered through careful observations and experimentation.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
PARTC. The following three statements are related. Please indicate your level of
agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
5.
Scientific theories may change in light of new evidence or new interpretation of
existing evidence.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
6.
Scientists can infer what has happened in the past, based on evidence.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
7.
We cannot be certain that climate change is occurring because no one was around
to observe climates of the past.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
8.
Scientists are able to use existing information to make predictions about future
natural phenomena.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
PART D. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.
9.
Scientists can abandon personal biases to make objective observations
because they are well-trained professionals.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
10.
Although subjectivity cannot be completely avoided in an observation, scientists
use reliable methods to verify the results and ensure objectivity.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
11.
No matter how the results are obtained, scientists will have to use the scientific
method to verify them.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
123
418
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
PART E. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.
12.
Scientists must follow the scientific method to conduct their investigations
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
13.
While the scientific method is useful in most instances, scientists sometimes
invent their own methods to answer their research questions.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
14.
Scientists use their imaginations to develop scientific theories.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
PART F. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.
15. Science is a collection of facts, theories and laws.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
16. Science is a way to think about the world around us.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
17. Scientists make explanations only based on evidence.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
18. Scientific claims have to through rigorous process of justification before them
become theories.
_Strongly Agree
_Agree
_Neutral
_Disagree _Strongly Disagree
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(a)
How did you go about answering your
question(s)?
(b) What type of data did you collect?
(c) How did you know that such data would help
you answer your question?
(d) How did you analyze and interpret your data?
What type of help did you get when you were
analyzing data and from whom (prof, graduate
student or others)?
(e) How did you learn how to use the instruments
for collecting your data?
PART G. Demographic Questions
Please place a checkmark next to the item that best describes you for each of the
following statements.
If your answer is Yes, place a checkmark in front of ____Yes and if your answer is no
place a checkmark in front of _____No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I am a __freshmen__sophomore__junior___senior
I am __White, __African American, __Asian, __Hispanic
I am ___male___female
I plan to pursue a science degree in college.
____Yes_____No
I plan to become a research scientist____Yes_____No
I would consider my overall gr ades in school as ___Above Average,
__Average,___ Below Average
7. I would consider my overall grades in science courses as ___Above Average,
__Average,___ Below Average
8. I would consider my overall grades in math courses as ___Above Average,
__Average,___ Below Average
9.
Appendix 2: Science Academy Students Only
Instructions for Students
We kindly ask you to describe your experiences as a high
school scientist by answering the following questions.
Select students who participated in the science internship
program may be invited to write a chapter for the
monograph.
Please answer the following questions as honestly as it is
possible.
1.
2.
3.
Can you please describe how you heard of this
program? Who encouraged you to seek out for this
opportunity?
How did you feel when you knew that you were
accepted into the program? How did people around
you (teachers, friends, family members) reacted to
your decision to participate in this program?
What were your motivations for joining this program? Like, what were you expecting to get out of
this program before joining?
(a)
123
Can you elaborate on what you actually learned
through this program compared to what you
were expecting to learn? Any disappointments,
surprises?
How long were you involved in this internship
program?
Where at did you conduct your research project?
Can you tell us whether you conducted an original
research project or did you work on an existing
project? How was this decision made?
If you worked on a project that you designed
yourself, how did you become interested in the topic
that you researched in your project?
How did you go about designing your research, what
questions were you interested in answering?
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
What did you learn about the ways in which
scientists think, before, during and after data collection and analysis through your participation in this
program? How did you learn it?
What did you learn about the ways in which scientists
do their work (i.e., hypothesis formulation, design of
research, data collection and analysis, writing conclusions), as a result of your participation in this program?
What did you learn about the topic you studied?
If you worked on your project as part of a team, what
were your responsibilities? How and at what level did
you participate in designing the question, deciding
the type of data you needed to collect, how to collect
and analyze data, and write the conclusions?
If you conducted an original research on your own,
describe the parts of research for which you received
help and the nature of help your received?
If you were to design this program, what would you
change/modify to make it more beneficial for the
program participants? Like, what would you like the
professors to do differently, your teachers to do
differently, graduate students to do differently,
students to do differently?
What type of college degree and career do you plan to
pursue? How has your participation in this research
experience influenced your career decisions? What
are some of the critical moments that influenced your
decisions?
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
419
procedures to collect data, will they necessarily
come to the same conclusions? Explain why or
why not.
(b) If several scientists, working independently, ask
the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to
the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.
(c) Does your response to (a) change if the
scientists are working together? Explain.
(d) Does your response to (b) change if the
scientists are working together? Explain.
PART THREE: Views of Scientific Inquiry
Questionnaire (VOSI): ALL GROUPS
Name: ______________________________
Class: ______________________________
Date: ______________________________
The following questions are asking for your views
related to science and scientific investigations. There are
no right or wrong answers.
Please answer each of the following questions. You can
use all the space provided to answer a question and continue on the back of the pages if necessary.
1.
2.
3.
What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists,
chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn
about the natural world? Discuss how scientists
(biologists, chemists, earth scientists) do their work.
How do scientists decide what and how to investigate? Describe all the factors you think influence the
work of scientists. Be as specific as possible.
A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of
different types of birds who eat different types of food.
He noticed that birds who eat similar types of food,
tended to have similar shaped beaks. For example,
birds who eat hard shelled nuts have short, strong
beaks, and birds who eat insects from tide pools have
long, slim beaks. He concluded that there is a
relationship between beak shape and the type of food
birds eat.
(a)
Do you consider this person’s investigation to
be scientific? Please explain why or why not.
(b) Do you consider this person’s investigation to be
an experiment? Please explain why or why not.
(c) Do you think that scientific investigations can
follow more than one method? Describe two
investigations that follow different methods.
Explain how the methods differ and how they
can still be considered scientific.
4.
(a)
If several scientists, working independently, ask
the same question and follow the same
5.
(a) What does the word ‘‘data’’ mean in science?
(b) What is involved in data analysis?
(c) Is ‘‘data’’ the same or different from ‘‘evidence?’’ Explain.
6.
Occasionally scientists encounter inconsistencies in
their data. What do you think scientists do when
some part of their data do not fit with what they
expect (an ‘‘outlier’’ or inconsistency is found)?
7. Explain how scientists form hypothesis. What makes
a good and a bad hypothesis?
8. Do you need to have a hypothesis to conduct a
scientific investigation? __Yes__No. Explain your
justification in the space provided below.
9. How do you think scientists develop theories?
Provide a detailed explanation about the way scientists develop theories
10. Can scientists develop theories without collecting
data?—Yes—No. Explain the justification for your
answer in the space provided below.
11. Can scientific theories change? If you think the
answer is yes, why would scientists change established scientific theories such as Newton’s Laws? If
you think the answer is No, explain why?
Appendix 3
See Table 4.
Table 4 Sample data evaluation rubric
Acceptable answer: adequate understanding
Not acceptable answer: not adequate understanding
Prompt
Do you think there are multiple methods or one single method of inquiry that scientists follow? Explain
Scientific
method
There is no one route to true scientific investigation due to the fact that I think they should all follow the scientific method
people perceive and examine things differently. Paralleling this is the There is only the scientific method. There are always variations within
thought that any method used to make conjectures about the world
experiments but they should all follow the same format to be
around us can be considered scientific
considered scientific. For example, one scientist may discover
something by chance and then test it, and another scientist may make a
In our project we tried to attach metal to C60 in two different ways: laser
discovery after years of research
ablation and synthetic chemistry. Had we been successful, we would
have used different methods to achieve the same ends. They were
scientific because we set out to prove something, observed results and
concluded something
123
420
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
Table 4 continued
Acceptable answer: adequate understanding
Not acceptable answer: not adequate understanding
Prompt
How do scientists develop theories? Explain
Scientific
theories
Scientists probably develop theories after years of careful observations They develop theories by observation of their surroundings. They think
of things that occur naturally and try and implement these observations
and finding patterns in their data. After all, you can’t just throw out a
in their field. For instance, cobalt has a high curie temperature; so
theory without first explaining where it came from and what kind of
adding it to Tb6Fe0.625Co0.375Sb2 should increase the curie temperature
data you have as backup. For example, a scientist spends 10 years on a
tropical island, observing the different kinds of monkeys present. Out
of that alloy. Theories do not have to have any solid proof. After all,
of the many species on the island, two are the most successful—the
most scientists assume that all theories are just scientific guesses. For
brown-haired monkeys and the white-haired monkeys. The scientist
example, Neil Bohr’s theory of the atomic structure was unproved
proposes that these species are the most sociable species of monkeys
during his time, but people still accepted it as fact
because they are always seen grooming and taking care of each other.
With nearly 10 years of solid proof and observations, this scientist has
developed a logical, possibly true theory
Prompt
Can scientific theories change? If you think the answer is yes, why would scientists change established scientific theories such as Newton’s Laws? If
you think the answer is No, explain why?
No, theories are almost fact
Tentativeness Yes. Galileo’s theory concerning heliocentricity changed, in fact
revolutionized, scientific theories of his day. In the same way, scientific
laws that bind the world we live in can be changed through new
discoveries
I think scientific theories could change, but if done correctly and
accurately then they don’t need to be changed, such as Newton’s Laws.
They could change in the sense that there is another way of thinking
about the scientific phenomena. They could change also to better
modify the scientific theory
References
Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) Improving science teachers’
conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the
literature. Int J Sci Educ 22(7):665–701
Abrams E, Southerland SA, Silva P (2007) Inquiry in the classroom:
challenges and possibilities. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]
(1993) Benchmarks for science literacy: a project 2061 report.
Oxford University Press, New York
Aydeniz M (2007) Understanding the challenges of implementing
assessment reform in science classrooms: a case study of science
teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Barab SA, Hay KE (2001) Constructivism in practice: a comparison
and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning
environments. J Learn Sci 10(1):281–322
Bell RL, Blair LM, Crawford BA, Lederman NG (2003) Just do it?
Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school
students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):487–509
Blanchard MR, Southerland SA, Granger DE (2009) No silver bullet
for inquiry: making sense of teacher change following an
inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Sci Educ
93(2):322–360
Bleicher RE (1996) High school students learning science in
university research laboratories. J Res Sci Teach 33(10):
1115–1133
Brown SL, Melear CT (2006) Investigation of secondary science
teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based
experiences. J Res Sci Teach 43:938–962
Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the
culture of learning. Educ Res 18:32–42
Charney J, Hmelo-Silver CE, Sofer W, Neigeborn L, Coletta S,
Nemeroff M (2007) Cognitive apprenticeship in science through
immersion in laboratory practices. Int J Sci Educ 29(2):195–213
123
Chen S (2006) Development of an instrument to assess views on
nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Sci Educ
90:803–819
Chinn CA, Hmelo CE (2002) Authentic inquiry: introduction to the
special section. Sci Educ 86:171–174
Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry
in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks.
Sci Educ 86:175–219
Dunbar K (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in
real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg RJ, Davidson J (eds)
Mechanisms of insight. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, pp 365–
395
Dunbar K (1997) How scientists think: online creativity and
conceptual change in science. In: Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid S
(eds) Conceptual structures and processes: emergence, discovery
and change. APA Press, Washington
Dunbar K (2001) What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of
cognition. In: Crowley K, Shunn C, Okada T (eds) Designing for
science: implications from everyday classroom and professional
settings. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
Edmond N (2005) Report on the relationship of the scientific method
to scientifically valid research and education research. Available
[Online] http://www.scientificmethod.com/normanbooklet.pdf
Eick CJ (2000) Inquiry, nature of science, and evolution: the need for
a more complex pedagogical content knowledge in science
teaching. Electron J Sci Educ 4(3):1–9
Gallagher JJ (1991) Prospective and practicing secondary school
science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of
science. Sci Educ 75:121–133
Germann PJ, Haskins S, Auls S (1996) Analysis of nine high school
biology laboratory manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. J Res
Sci Teach 33(5):475–499
Guba E, Lincoln Y (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA
Harding P, Hare W (2000) Portraying science accurately in
classrooms: emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. J Res Sci Teach 37(3):225–236
J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:403–421
Hofstein A, Lunetta VN (2004) The laboratory in science education:
foundation for the 21st century. Sci Educ 88:28–54
Hsu PL, Roth WM (2009) From a sense of stereotypically foreign to
belonging in a science community: ways of experiential
descriptions about high school students’ science internship.
Res Sci Educ. Published online 26 Feb 2009: http://www.
springerlink.com/content/u2865r04h8271456/
Hsu PL, Roth WM, Mazumder A (2009) Natural pedagogical
conversations in a high school students’ internship. J Res Sci
Teach 46(5):481–505
Khishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F (2002) The influence of explicit reflective
versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’
views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39(7):551–578
Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make
knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Kulkarni D, Simon HA (1988) The processes of scientific discovery:
the strategy of experimentation. Cogn Sci 12:139–175
Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of
scientific fact, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In:
Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science
education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 831–880
Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F (1998) Avoiding de-natured science:
activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In:
McComas W (ed) The nature of science in science education:
rationales and strategies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 83–126
Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS (2002)
Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and
meaningful assessment of learners conceptions of nature of
science. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):497–521
Lee H-S, Songer NB (2003) Making authentic science accessible to
students. Int J Sci Educ 25(8):923–948
Longino H (1990) Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Loving C (1997) From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes:
science education’s journey through positivist-postmodern territory. Am Educ Res J 34(3):421–452
McComas WF (1996) Ten myths of science: reexamining what we
think we know about the nature of science. School Sci Math
96:10–16
Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications
in education (rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco
National Academies of Sciences [NAS] (2005) America’s lab report:
investigations in high school science. Committee on high school
science laboratories: role and vision. The National Academies,
Washington, DC
National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academic Press, Washington
National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science
education standards. National Academic Press, Washington
Richmond G, Kurth LA (1999) Moving from outside to inside: high
school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering
the culture and practice of science. J Res Sci Teach 36(6):
677–697
Ritchie SM, Rigano DL (1996) Laboratory apprenticeship through a
student research project. J Res Sci Teach 33(7):799–815
Rogoff B (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development
in social context. Oxford University Press, New York
Roth W-M (1995) Authentic school science. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Roth KJ, Garnier HE (2007) What science teaching looks like: an
international perspective. Educ Leadersh 64(4):16–23
Roth W-M, Roychoudhury A (1993) The development of science
process skills in authentic contexts. J Res Sci Teach 30(2):
127–152
421
Rudolph J (2005) Epistemology for the masses: the origins of ‘the
scientific method’ in American schools. Hist Educ Q 45:341–376
Russ R (2006). A framework for recognizing mechanistic reasoning
in student scientific reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore
Ryan AG, Aikenhead GS (1992) Students’ preconceptions about the
epistemology of science. Sci Educ 76(6):559–580
Sadler TD, Birgen S (2009, January) Authentic science research
experiences for students and teachers: a review of empirical
literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for Science Teacher Education, Hartford, CT
Sadler T, Burgin S, McKinney L, Ponjuan L (2010) Learning science
through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the
literature. J Res Sci Teach 47(3):235–256
Sandoval WA, Reiser BJ (2004) Explanation driven inquiry:
integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific
inquiry. Sci Educ 88(3):345–372
Schunn CD, Anderson JR (1999) The generality/specificity of
expertise in scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 23(3):337–370
Schwartz RS, Crawford BA (2003, January) Critical elements for
teaching the nature of science in the context of authentic
scientific inquiry: practical guidelines for teacher educators.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Education of Teachers in Science. St. Louis, MO
Schwartz R, Lederman N (2006, April) Scientists’ epistemological
views of science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco
Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Crawford BA (2004) Developing views
of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach
to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Sci Educ 88(4):610–645
Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Khishfe R, Lederman J, Matthews L,
Liu SY (2002, January) Explicit/reflective instructional attention to nature of science and scientific inquiry: impact on student
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC
Schwartz RS, Lederman N, Lederman N (2008, March) An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: the VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Baltimore, MD. March 30–April 2
Stake JE, Mares KR (2001) Science enrichment programs for gifted
high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on
science confidence and motivation. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):
1065–1088
Stake JE, Mares KR (2005) Evaluating the impact of scienceenrichment programs on adolescents’ science motivation and
confidence: the splashdown effect. J Res Sci Teach 42(4):
359–375
Tang X, Levin DM, Coffey JE, Hammer D (2008) The scientific
method and scientific inquiry: tension as in teaching and learning.
In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, vol 2, pp 374–381
Templin MA, Engemann JF, Doran RL (1999) A locally based
science mentorship program for high achieving students:
unearthing issues that influence affective outcomes. School Sci
Math 99(4):205–212
Wallace CS, Kang NH (2004) An investigation of experienced
secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. J Res Sci Teach 41:936–960
Windschitl M, Thomson J, Braaten M (2008) Beyond the scientific
method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference
for school science investigations. Sci Educ 92(5):941–967
Zachos P (2000) Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for
assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. J Res Sci Teach 37:938–962
123